Page 7 of 10
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:33 pm
Yes, delete the non vintage diver girl and please, let's not turn this into a "girly" pamphlet.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:39 pm
I agree with David Hass, if the "girl" is trying out vintage scuba and afterall teaching the old ways to new divers is part of the fun then it is fine by me to include such pictures, female or male --but --I do NOT want to turn this into a pin up poster. If fat old men are what we got then fat old me it shall be---lol. Uh, my self---not--included---lol.
Nemrod<----sleek and streamlined and fast and not old (I don't think)
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:30 pm
Examples of photographs not suitable for inclusion would be this one. This is the diver that said we don't know what we are doing and that "we are not very good dviers" quote. This would be the one that was also mentioned somewhere else.
Image of "tool" removed because it was simply to frightening
But it was an excellent of example of what we don't want and why we don't want it.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:20 pm
I don't think I'll sleep well tonight after seeing this image.
Bryan, do you still have any of that retina bleach left?
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:02 am
Scarey for sure. Not pamplet material, but I bet my bottom dollar he can not only get his reg back in his yaw, but he can don and clear his mask too. I'd dive with him.
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:07 am
Is that who I think it is?
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:35 am
I don't see the picture. It must have been removed.
Anyhow, on to business.....
Nemrod wrote:.......I do NOT want to turn this into a pin up poster.
Uh.....might better review Marketing 101 there, James
Vintage Diver NAVED pamphlet
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:25 pm
As I said, group rules although I don't think the girl shot that's been discussed is too much Hooter's type material LOL.....
I'm also lost as to what photo Duckbill is referring to.....What "tool", etc.?
Is this another photo of a "typical" vintage diver that has been posted and taken down already?
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:58 pm
I think the pic was of that jerk from sucbaboring.com. You know the one that said we all sucked as divers and did not know what we were doing. He said all that but tried to ride VDH coat tails and take credit for SD3! What a JERK. There is a reason people call him "netdick" on his own site!
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:38 pm
I removed the picture of the "tool" from scubaDIRboard.com that I posted as an example of a non vintage diver because it would distract us from the mission. It was sorta funny but also very distracting given the one real life run in with him had poor results and lot's of negative feelings.
The lady trying the scuba gear out is fine with me if we can get her permission to use the photo. As long as the photos we have convey the vintage community "flavor" that is great and the ones that you guys have provided and that Lisa has arranged all look wonderful.
I think we have made good progress and Lisa has done a super job of putting some great photos and ideas together. This is very exciting to be this close to a finished product.
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:07 pm
Did you get the samples yet?
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:32 pm
The mission statement has a couple of misspellings. I think it is supposed to say "preservation" (it is missing an "r") and "equipment" (it has an extra "t").
I haven't checked the rest of the document. Since you probably have it as a text file it would be easier to run it through spell checker.
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:51 pm
Thank you Luis! I copy/pasted that line and never checked it. Someone already pointed out the equipment, thanks for catching the other. The rest should be good, but you're welcome to look. (photoshop has a spell checker too
The last version I posted here isn't the most recent version, still some filing going on
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:56 pm
justleesa sent me some samples from an online printing company they use in their buisness. They look pretty good though the paper is thicker than the local company I spoke with would use. I am not sure which is better. The 80 pound paper is used for standard pamphlets by the local companies and looks and feels like a typical brochure. The online version seems to be 100 pound and is a bit stiffer. I actually like the heavier paper better, what do you guys think?
The online priniting is cheaper on smaller volumes but the local company gets very competitive on larger runs and I could probably negotiate a bit more with them. The benifit is I can stand there and say--yes--I like it or no etc. Of course, we are talking around 500 dollars for about 2,000 units--approximate.
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:23 pm
I'd say; you're there, you can see the difference and know the pros and cons. Any choice you make is good with me.